Dr. Court sought clarifications on the measurement of a pathway in a Commissioner's Report for Second Appeal Sa.No.658/2017. Counsel clarified the discrepancy, and the court held that the judgment dated 16.02.2022 stands good.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SA.No.658/2017 & CMP.No.16407/2017
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
The above Second Appeal is posted under the caption ''For Being Mentioned'' at the instance of the Court seeking certain clarifications from the learned counsel for the appellants.
2.When this Court posed a query as regards non-mentioning of the measurement of the pathway in the Commissioner's Report, the learned counsel relied on the evidence of the Surveyor, who was examined as DW3 and who has deposed that there is a pathway in S.No.29 measuring about 3 1/2 feet and however, there is a reference about a concrete road in the Commissioner's Report.
3.After hearing the learned counsels on either side, the issue is clarified and the judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed in the above Second Appeal holds good.
23.02.2022
AP
Internet: Yes
1 issue framed by the court
Clarification on the existence of a pathway in the Commissioner's Report regarding property measurement.
S.S.SUNDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
